Airbus

[AHToronto]

that is true but have you forgot about the "spruce goose"?? that is the actual biggest airplane in the world...don't you remember that?

[AHToronto]

Whilst i do not want this to turn into an A vs. B argument (which is all too common for Aviation forums).

You do forget to mention that the 787 has been realistically planned, sure, their have been delays. But if thats an issue, look into the A380's delays. The project has been delayed for over a year, and due to that, many order's where lost.

I like Boeing and Airbus. But before you get into all this, the A380 actually is only a few meters longer than the 747, and height. It's basically an A340 with a Tumor growing on it's back.

Don't get me wrong, i had a great time spotting it at Singapore last month.. But really, it will never be as classic as the 747. I don't see any innovation whatsoever, the wings even failed test's and had to be re-designed so it actually can hold the amount of PAX published by Airbus in the first place. As for now, airlines won't be fitting it in Airbus's claimed "800+ PAX", sure, but it would be in all economy. It would be a flying cattle-truck really. Sure, 50+ more seats on average than the 747.. but, the A380 still has to prove itself. And don't forget that every airport that this 50+ more seats than 747 goes to, they have to spend millions on runways, taxiways, air bridges and new gates and lounges to accommodate 1 single new airliner. Just for a 50+ more passengers on average (as no self respecting airline such as BA or EK will place 800+ in all economy). But i'm sure the A380 will have a bit more leg space (again, airline decision).. But we will see how things go.

And again, I like Boeing and Airbus, hey, even Embraer.

Don't get me wrong. The A380 still is amazing to gaze at.. but ain't the 747 classics sexy anyway? ... hehehhe

and yes about the canceled orders, but most of them were to pay depts or something like that. not to cancel orders, but to pay off some depts they forgot to pay.

[mrual]

" Airbus " dont you mean Scarebus   we at united have a saying if it isn`t boeing i`m not going and yes the 787 is developed on the ground  flying and is getting its certified will be delivered soon

[AHToronto]

well, we at Frontier have a saying to, if it ain't airbus, it REALLY scares us 'boeing', don't you mean boring!

[yourefired]

747 will always be the king/queen of the sky. No matter if the A380 sells better or is bigger

When the 747 came out, it was like a giant cheese burger comapared to a molecule.

No, the king/queen of the sky was, is and always will be concorde. The 747 is comparable to a minivan while I'd liken concorde to, say, a maserati or something. Would you rather drive a $100k sports car or a $30k minivan?

Airbus planes' safety records kick Boeing planes' asses. Plus when I fly in a Boeing I can feel that the plane isn't all that well put together. On the other hand when I fly in an Airbus the wings don't rattle as much, parts don't feel like they're going to fall off, the plane doesn't shake as much, they just feel better put together. What else do you expect from a company that used to make the concorde?

Frankly I lost faith* in Boeing (or Boring) when the Air Force decided to give the tanker contract to Airbus.

*Not that I ever HAD any faith in Boeing

[Seattle]

No, the king/queen of the sky was, is and always will be concorde. The 747 is comparable to a minivan while I'd liken concorde to, say, a maserati or something. Would you rather drive a $100k sports car or a $30k minivan?

Airbus planes' safety records kick Boeing planes' asses. Plus when I fly in a Boeing I can feel that the plane isn't all that well put together. On the other hand when I fly in an Airbus the wings don't rattle as much, parts don't feel like they're going to fall off, the plane doesn't shake as much, they just feel better put together. What else do you expect from a company that used to make the concorde?

Frankly I lost faith* in Boeing (or Boring) when the Air Force decided to give the tanker contract to Airbus.

*Not that I ever HAD any faith in Boeing

What Crap are you talking about!? Airbus and Boeing both have incredibly safe records. Almost all crashes of planes since... about 1990 have been due to improper maintainance/airlines faults. What your saying is bs. Boeing planes are buildt 100% as well as Airbus (probably better ). The Rattling of the wings and plane has nothing todo with the plane's integerity. That's caused by pilots, weather, tublence, etc. Concorde was a nice plane.... however, it safety record was not steller... and it was not an economically viable plane (gas guzzler and too small). A plane, not economically viable, what would you expect from Airbus?

Before you make silly, incorrect, and frankly quite stupid comments about Boeing or any other aircraft manufacturer, research your facts.

[yourefired]

Like I said, if A330 is good enough for the air force, it's good enough for me.

And concorde did make BA and Air France millions of dollars. Just not enough millions of dollars. As far as I can tell, plane parts aren't supposed to rattle during takeoff. And as far as I can tell, I like french planes better. Concorde will always have its place in my heart as the queen of the sky. I somehow doubt anyone's going to scream bloody murder when the last 747 rolls off the assembly line.

[noob24]

In a pilots point of view, boeing is better because the wings are more flexible than aibuses, meaning it's easier to manage in turbulence. Like wat seattle said, the 747 will always be the king of the skies.

For the second class long range, 777 (prince of the skies ) is more preferable than A340. (note that 777 has no fatal accidents before!)

For medium class, A330 is way better than 767 (767 is pretty hopeless)

For short haul, even though A320 can seat more than 737, 737 will always be in the skies, carrying spirit from the '70s.

For regional, ATR 72!!!!

I love boeing, boeing is the best, because airbus gave me a bad first impression. but if i owned an airline, i cannot just buy an aircraft just bcoz l like it !!! As with concorde... ermm... yeah!!!

[MRFREAK]

I pretty much like Airbus more than Boeing, because i think Boeing's aircrafts looks a bit boring except for the 747 and 787 Dreamliner. But i think that the A380 can't beat the Boeing 747.


And i pretty much think that the CRJ200 is way better as a Regional than a silly ATR-72

[Seattle]

Like I said, if A330 is good enough for the air force, it's good enough for me.

And concorde did make BA and Air France millions of dollars. Just not enough millions of dollars. As far as I can tell, plane parts aren't supposed to rattle during takeoff. And as far as I can tell, I like french planes better. Concorde will always have its place in my heart as the queen of the sky. I somehow doubt anyone's going to scream bloody murder when the last 747 rolls off the assembly line.

the only thing that "shakes" is the wings flexing after takeoff. nothing else "shakes". (well, the overhead cabins jiggle, but thats how it is in all planes). The concorde made NO money what so ever, when the cost of operating it is factred in. The 747 will not go off the line for a while.

[xoqez]

Hi, there is a bit war about Boeing vs Airbus but really what is the difference they complement each other quite well. I am not to comment as I am not an aircraft engineer so I can only comment on what I have flown.

There is quite some information on wikipedia about the A380 if you need information. Wikipedia is not the most accurate source but it has been debated to be as accurate as Britannica.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_a380

Measurement    A380-800    A380-800F
Cockpit crew    Two
Seating capacity    525 (3-class)[5]
644 (2-class)
853 (1-class)    12 couriers
Length    73 m (239 ft 6 in)
Span    79.8 m (261 ft 10 in)
Height    24.1 m (79 ft 1 in)
Wheelbase    30.4 m (99 ft 8 in)
Outside fuselage width    7.14 m (23 ft 6 in)
Cabin width, main deck    6.60 m (21 ft 8 in)
Cabin width, upper deck    5.94 m (19 ft 6 in)
Wing area    845 m² (9,100 sq ft)
Operating empty weight    276,800 kg (610,200 lb)    252,200 kg (556,000 lb)
Maximum take-off weight    560,000 kg
(1,235,000 lb)    590,000 kg (1,300,000 lb)
Maximum payload    90,800 kg
(200,000 lb)    152,400 kg (336,000 lb)
Cruising speed    Mach 0.85
Maximum cruising speed    Mach 0.89
Maximum speed    Mach 0.96 [98]
Take off run at MTOW    2,750 m (9,020 ft)[80]    2,900 m (9,510 ft)[80]
Range at design load    15,200 km (8,200 nmi)    10,400 km (5,600 nmi)
Service ceiling    13,115 m (43,000 ft)
Maximum fuel capacity    310,000 L (81,890 US gal)    310,000 L (81,890 US gal),
356,000 L (94,000 US gal) option
Engines (4 x)    GP7270 (A380-861)
Trent 970/B (A380-841)
Trent 972/B (A380-842)    GP7277 (A380-863F)
Trent 977/B (A380-843F)

[love_bus]

Yes, but then. The A380 is a conventional, whilst the 787 is fairly inovative. The 787 is introducing a whole new era, im not dissing the A380, it still interests me as well.

Today though, Airbus has contacted 2 (or more) airlines and mentioned their may be even more delays on the A380 delivery(s).

The 787 does have delays, but, a plane with as much innovation on board as the Dreamliner was BOUND to run into far worse trouble than the - apart from sheer size - quite conventional A380.

Neither are offering compensation, and customers of the 787 really have no choice, the only other competitor (A350) is only scheduled for first deliveries in 2013 earliest (and we can now place bets on how punctual THAT program will be).

all that aside, it was quite interesting to see the A380 at SIN early this year. I saw both sisters, 9V-SKA and 9V-SKB. 

[simfan]

Yes, but then. The A380 is a conventional, whilst the 787 is fairly inovative. The 787 is introducing a whole new era, im not dissing the A380, it still interests me as well.

Dear love_bus, it seems to me that you know quite nothing about the complexity of the A380 program when you say the plane would be big but conventional.
BTW Airbus introduced a whole new area back in the late 1980s when the first fly-by-wire passenger jet A320 took off.

[love_bus]

Dear love_bus, it seems to me that you know quite nothing about the complexity of the A380 program when you say the plane would be big but conventional.
BTW Airbus introduced a whole new area back in the late 1980s when the first fly-by-wire passenger jet A320 took off.

Don't jump to conclusions. The A380 is by no means a simple - new model to the Airbus lineup, I never said that. but i maintain my comments that the A380 is still relatively a conventional airliner compared to the 787. The A380 was a complex design, but it hasn't introduced too much other than another deck and the maths to get it off the ground. Don't get me wrong, it would've taken a lot of steps to introduce such a large airliner and make her fly. Personally, imho, that the 787 has been more innovative in its final design.

I know that Airbus and the A320 introduced the first fly-by-wire aircraft. i have all respect for Airbus's pioneering achievments, i never said that Airbus hasn't contributed any innovations. Just that the A380 is still more of conventional airliner compared to the 787. again, imo.

cheers

[simfan]

Personally, imho, that the 787 has been more innovative in its final design.

What in your opinion are the crucial points that lift the innovations of the 787 above those of the A380?

[love_bus]

What in your opinion are the crucial points that lift the innovations of the 787 above those of the A380?

written by me few posts back:

Whilst i do not want this to turn into an A vs. B argument (which is all too common for Aviation forums).

A vs B has been discussed to death, the fact is it's a matter of opinion. And why do you post as if i have chosen sides? here i've talked of the difference of the A380 and the 787, in particular innovation in the industry whilst all you do is question me, at least put your own opinion, i'd like some input.

What in your opinion are the crucial points that lift the innovations of the 787 above those of the A380?

Now, shall we move into this? Why is the 787 more innovative compared to the A380? why? A Hell of a lot of reasons are why.

Apart from the well known fact that it will be the first major airliner to use composite materials for most of its construction (85% in total). They even held a joint study with Oklahoma university which found that by making the  internal cabin pres. equivalent to 6000ft instead of the 8000ft on conventional aircraft it will be more comfortable for passengers. The airliner is also innovative in it's construction, eliminating the need for thousands of fastners and bolts, might not seem like much, but do the math, it's a big saving in money, materials and most importantly TIME. Of course, the major winning point in the whole new composite airliner concept that the 787 is pioneering is the Composites, it's probably the winning factor in innovation in my personal opinion.

Now, if your going to compare the 787 to the A380 you would be wrong. Technically the closest counterpart to the 787 is the planned Airbus A350- "XWB" . Now, when it comes to Innovation in Design, we have to give it to boeing. The Airbus Series do share a common family, from the A300 through to the A340, theirs no denying that. This isn't neccesarily a bad thing, as it's economically well off, and mostly asthetics (as each model is very different despite the same family tree). The A350 has come under significant critisism, so much that Airbus actually redesigned it's final design, again. In this design was the addition of a significant percentage of Composites.

Now, In my Opinion those are the most significant Innovations of the 787. The 787 has introduced an entirely new design and concept, again, despite the sheer size of the A380, it's just a Competitor of the 747 on steroids. Now, don't get me wrong, im not denying the technology thats gone into the A380.

The 380 hasn't had the best publicity thats for sure, with delays, delays, internal issues etc.. This isn't a debate on whats better, 787 or A380, but how innovative they are put up against eachother. IMHO, look at the A380, Airports around the world have spent millions on widening runways and taxiways, multi-million dollar gates to accomodate 1 sole new airliner which will most likely stay in a class of her own. Boeing has shown that it's not about sheer size but how you do it. now compare orders.

IMHO 

Regards,
tom

[Seattle]

I agree.

[Idioteque]

How can you talk about innovative vs conventional and then end off with now let's compare orders? They are not in the same range of seats at all. And talking about orders, how about deliveries then? Boeing may have won more orders than Airbus but Airbus has been delivering more than Boeing in recent years. Take a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_between_Airbus_and_Boeing

And A380 is designed to carry X amount of passengers. If the airlines decide they want to carry say 50+ more than B747 it's their choice. That of course in lieu of other extras like SIA's Suite Class. I read that Emirates may even offer shower facilites onboard their A380s! Now that is revolutionalising air travel. Although I don't think cattle class designate travellers like me will get to enjoy that 

[love_bus]

true, i did mention it though

Now, if your going to compare the 787 to the A380 you would be wrong

Agreed though, their 2 totally different aircrafts, comparing orders won't do much. (on the other hand, the A350), but thats expected to be launching in 2013 at the earliest.

I don't think cattle class designate travellers like me will get to enjoy that

heheh, same here. back to tiger airways for me... 

And just you wait for Virgin Atlantic! SRB has a lot in store for us with their A380 order!

[Sami]

Airbus is always better!!!1111!! 



[attachment deleted by admin]